Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 3902621, member: 19165&quot;]No. I&#039;m saying PCGS and NGC are both wrong, if they both label this as a retained cud. What you show is correctly referred to as a rim to rim die break. </p><p><br /></p><p>See these two pages for a description of the difference: </p><p><a href="https://cuds-on-coins.com/retained-cuds/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://cuds-on-coins.com/retained-cuds/" rel="nofollow">https://cuds-on-coins.com/retained-cuds/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.error-ref.com/anvil-die-retained-cud/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.error-ref.com/anvil-die-retained-cud/" rel="nofollow">http://www.error-ref.com/anvil-die-retained-cud/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>The top one below is a rim-to-rim die break. This appears to be what is shown on your coin. There is no separation of this piece, but the face of the die is broken. A cud appears when the shank of the die completely separates and begins to move away from the remainder of the die. On the Lincoln below, the broken section of die is retained in the collar sufficiently to still strike a portion of the coin, but it has begun to physically separate from the rest of the die. If that piece were to fall out of the collar, or gets pushed back far enough that it is no longer contacting the planchet, then it is a cud. </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.error-ref.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/48922098.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://www.error-ref.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/48922122.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in